tv Charlie Rose PBS February 12, 2010 12:00pm-1:00pm EST
>> welcome to the broadcast. tonight a look at iran on the # 1st anniversary of the islamic revolution with roger cohen of "the new york times." r. scott kemp of princeton university. farideh farhi of the university of hawaii and nazila fathi of "the new york times." >> the security deployment in the 48 hours before today was so massive that the fact that the appearance of the green movement on the streets today was not so large as perhaps not that significant. i think iran remains roughly divided between 40% of the population that opposes this regime, 40% that is for it and 20% undivided. >> people were telling me this morning, as soon as we got close to the area where mr. ahmadinejad was going to give his speech, they were faced with huge numbers of security forces, armed, holding batons, many people were stopped, their
mobile phones were checked to see if there were any text messages on their phones about the protest today. and many of them just decided to come back. but the fact that many of them did dare to go out, it was quite significant. >> the fundamental facts on the ground of what the nuclear program is able to do has almost been unchanged with this recent announcement. almost nothing really had happened but it is a very -- simply a political stance that iran has taken. >> what has been shown in the past few months in iran is that no side can purge the other, and i think when that fundamental reality finally sinks in, then there might be a possibility for some sort of accommodation on the part of both sides. >> and we continue there it is evening with tom donohue, the president and c.e.o. of the united states chamber of commerce. >> my differences with the president are more in scope and
method. let me give you an example. for years i have been visiting with the c.e.o.s of all size of companies and they all want a health care bill. we have to curb down the cost of health care. the president came in. he let everybody else write the bill and ended up with something that, in all of my years in washington, was so big, so expansive, that i think it could bust the bank. >> we conclude this evening with the remembrance of fashion designer alexander mcqueen. >> as i grew up, i started doing my own, depicting what i thought fashion was about. and i live in central london. i'm surrounded by the things most of the other designers don't really see, the real london, the club scene, the homelessness, the thing that other designers don't ra really want to see. >> so your influence is different. >> my influences are different and more, i suppose, honest and direct about things that i care about in the world. even though i work in fashion,
it's not really, you know, i still have to, you know, look what else is going on in the world and some of that comes into my work. >> >> rose: iran on an anniversary, the chamber of commerce speaks out, and alexander mcqueen ♪ ♪ if you've had a coke in the last 20 years, ( screams ) you've had a hand in giving college scholarships... and support to thousands of our nation's... most promising students. ♪ ( coca-cola 5-note mnemonic )
captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> we begin this evening with iran. today was the anniversary of the islamic revolution that toppled the shah31 years ago. the day has been seen as a test of the opposition's strength in the face of a brutal government crack down nuclear state, he denied the country sought a nuclear bomb. heavy security forces prevented the protest from reaching critical mass. opposition websites reported clashes between protesters
around the country. the day's news comes against the backdrop of increased talk against harsher sanctions against iran. president obama addressed the matter earlier this week. >> we have bent over backwards to say to the islamic republic of iran that we are willing to have a constructive conversation about how they can align themselves with international norms and rules and re-enter as full members of the international community. the next step is sanctions. they have made their choice so far, although the door is still open. and what we are going to be working on over the next several weeks is developing a significant regime of sanctions that will indicate to them how isolated they are from the international community as a whole. >> today senator john mccain announced a bipartisan bill to sanction iranian officials for
human rights violations. >> i have long maintained that the day that a young woman named netta bled to death in the streets of tehran in the eyes of millions and millions of people around the world was the beginning of the end of this tyrannical regime. and we americans have an obligation to assist morally and materially that effort for freedom and democracy. i hope that the administration will now understand that this unclenching of the fist has not worked. it has been over a year's delay and the iranians have proceeded toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons. >> rose: joining me from honolulu is farideh farhi, and nazila fathi. >> here in new york, roger cohen, a columnist for "the new york times" who also covered june elections and talked to us about it. to talk about iran's nuclear
program, scott kemp is here from princeton university. i am pleased to have all of them on the program. i begin this question to everyone. is there anything that you know in terms of what happened today in iran that is important for us to disclose at this time because you might have communicated in ways that i was not aware of? >> i think one important thing, charlie, is that in the 48 hours before the 31st anniversary, from everything i have heard, people talking to friends in tehran, the government clamp down was absolutely massive. the security deployment in the 48 hours before today was so massive that the fact that the appearance of the green movement on the streets today was not so large as perhaps not that significant. i think iran remains roughly divided between 40% of the population that opposes this regime, 40% that is for it, and 20% undecided.
the clash that began when we were there on june 12 continues and everyone that was working in a government office today was told you had better be in the office and we're busing you to these demonstrations. so what you saw on the streets doesn't necessarily reflect any change in the basic reality. >> nazila, what can you tell us about what you know? >> i think it was important that as many people that we think went out actually went out despite the crack down. i spoke to many this morning that said despite the threats they received -- people have been receiving threats from the intelligence ministry, text messages saying that the rioters would be dead today, warning people not to go out today, or to carry anything green that is the symbolic color of the movement, people did go out. and people were telling us this morning as soon as they got close to the area where mr. ahmadinejad was going to
give his speech they were faced with huge numbers of security forces armed, holding batons, many people were stopped, their mobile phones were checked to see if there were any text messages on their phones about the protest today. and many of them just decided to come back. but the fact that many of them did dare to go out, it was quite significant. and in the afternoon, we did get reports that there were scattered protests and clashes around tehran, especially in the western neighborhood of ariashaad and there was a report many were arrested. >> what can you tell us. >> i talk toed to a lot of people and they did go out. they simply didn't know what to do. the iranian regime has been staging this demonstration for the past 30 years, and it's very
good at it. and what was fascinating to many people, and i think it will have consequences in the future, is that, for example, on the street that leads to the main square, you actually had organized demonstrators walking alongside people who had gone to protests that really didn't know what to do and what kind of slogans to give. and neither side was particularly acrimonious to each other. the reality is that they were looking at each other and they were seeing that they come -- many were coming from similar backgroundses. i think roger has it right, that this day perhaps too much was made out of it. it really did not change the fundamental reality of iran and the fact that there are deep cleavages in the area that the system has not been able to
manage and these are the questions that continue to face the regime for months to come. >> rose: this announcement about nuclear nation, what does it mean? >> it means iran is basically trying to posture itself with behavior against the u.s. by pushing right up against the legal boundaries, if not legal, at least normative boundaries of what is considered legitimate in the era. but with what pakistan did and india did with its nuclear program, which is to try to build new support for the regime by showing that iran can defy the west with its nuclear program and that it is technically advanced and therefore win support. and so the nuclear program in these announcements really are -- in that vein, the fundamental facts on the ground of what the nuclear program is able to do has almost been unchanged with this recent announcement. almost nothing really has happened. but it is simply a political
stance iran has taken. >> how close are they? >> at least many months, possibly into the number of years. it's very hard to estimate because it's not a lot of accurate information about how their centrifuges operate and there are many ways thank the we might attempt to go for a bomb. >> the president talked ant sanctions. you think that is the wrong way to go. >> i have proposed sanctions pretty consistently. i have now reached a point where, well, if there are going to be any sanctions, at least the administration has dropped talk of crippling sanctions. president clinton and others were talking about crippling sanctions and the prime minister continues to talk about crippling sanctions but the approximate the is now talking about something very different. he is talking about very targeted sanction that are aimed at the revolutionary guards. if we're going to have any sanctions and congress wants sanctions, i don't think -- this
is a political reality of the united states, and i don't think we can escape it. do i think the sanctions will change any fundamental realities, charlie? no, i don't. and indeed i think there's a lot to be said for loosening sanctions in some areas and we should be doing the opposite. what do people in iran need? they need, for example, anti-fillstration technology. the government is very adept at filtering out email messages and other forms of information it doesn't want. this anti-filtration technology exists. right now under american law, you cannot export this to iran. indeed, you can't even download technically a microsoft messenger. so in some respects, i think, what do people need? they need information and openness and how do we compete with the revolutionary guards increasing a monopoly over the economy? it's by opening things up. let the private sector import things and do things. otherwise the domination of the
revolutionary guards, the people we're trying to hit, in theory, is only going to grow. >> rose: where do you think, nazila, the movement is and what strength do they have today to change iran? >> well, we have the first -- we have to first look at how far they have come. since eight months ago, since june, they have come a long way. in june they started a protest, just in silence, marching down the street and all they requested was nullify indication of the election results and new elections. now eight months later they are chanting slogans against the leaders of the country. they are chanting slogans specifically against mr. amene and today they called for a referendum, exactly what took place 31 years ago after the victory of the revolution. this is a huge way that the movement has come along. but it doesn't mean that they
are after overthrowing the regime and one day we have to expect the regime to fall apart. the movement is still far away from its real goals and we have to be patient. and people are learning within the movement how to be patient, how to be tolerant, how to tolerate one another. this movement includes people from various backgrounds. there are people that demand the fall of the regime all together and people who just want a kind of reform within the establishment. they want to preserve the order. we cannot expect anything from this movement within days or months. >> what should the united states' role be, in your judgment? >> i totally agree with roger about the kind of support the iranian people need at this point. they have shown they are capable of forwarding their struggle on their own. but the government crippled them just recently by curbing the internet and the satellite.
both of them were major tools that the opposition was using for communication. these are the areas that the united states and come out and help with. >> when you look at where ahmadinejad is, how solid is his support and what is his relationship with the supreme leader today? and who is depending on whom? >> ok. it depends on what you mean by "sold." i mean, if you're asking a question about whether or not ahmadinejad will be kicked out of the iranian political system and solidly means him not being criticized and in control of the situation, i would say that actually he is not very solid. he is very much criticized. and, in fact, if there is a
quieting of the streets, what you will see in the next few months are going to be very, very fierce fights over the economic direction of the country, as well as in some ways the foreign policy of the country. i mean, it's important to understand that it's almost only about a month before the iranian new year, fiscal new year, and iran does not have a budget. and it's because mr. ahmadinejad was very late in introducing the budget. there's going to be a huge fight in the way that he is going to approach the budget. he is also expected to begin a process of reforming the subsidy system, and everybody is worried about the illegal ways that he is going to go about doing that and not listen to the mandates
of the particlement. so he is not in trouble in terms of his presidency being in trouble immediately. but in terms of the policy direction of the country, he is going to be in very, very serious conflict with the rest of the population, and with the rest of the iranian political elite. and i think that is something that is usually missed in the discussion of iran, that what you see in iran is not only a division among the people, as roger pointed out, but also a very serious division at the top level of the society. so far, it has created a total gridlock to the point that just last week, for example, the mayor of tehran said that the country has been on holiday for the past years and therefore, unless the mechanisms that are put into place that overcomes
the gridlock and stalemate, mr. ahmadinejad's problems are not going to go away. >> the question is for them, throughout iran, is how do we make the best islamic revolution, is it not? >> it continues, here we are the 31st anniversary and there's always an inherent tension between the two words in the country's self description. islamic republic and how do you have a theocracy that votes and where do you find the appropriate balance between the deep shia belief of iran and its centennial quest for a representative government? and this is a struggle that is playing out today. and i can tell you, if it's not resolved today it will rear its head again a year from now or five years from now. we saw it under hatami and then there's been repression under ahmadinejad. there will be wave after wave,
because iran is a question that is questing for some form of pluralism and some solid bases between balance between those two words, islamic republic. >> do you think the people of ahmadinejad and his supreme leader believe this is about somehow protecting the islamic republic and islamic revolution or is it simply a question of staying in power? >> well, it looks like there's a question of staying in power. they have felt very, very threatened by what happened after the june 12 elections. they were not expecting the prose tests to drag on for such a long time, especially after the brutal crack-down and that's why they used such brutal force to end it. but what has happened, it has backlashed and now they feel they are getting deeper and deeper into a problem that they cannot find a solution to it. the solution they were seeking is just an end and not responding to people's needs.
i hail doubt it that there is going to be an easy solution to this crises. it's a question of staying in power, but the answer is not easy. how are they going to stay in power when the protesters are just not backing town? >> do most people that you know believe that inevitably iran will have nuclear capability? >> i don't think they do. well, nuclear capability, yes. a nuclear weapon, no. it's important to distinguish between the two. the a lot of countries have the cape dealt to make a nuclear weapon. >> do middle east people believe they will be where japan is. >> i think they are. >> they are more or less there already. >> yes. i think it will take them a couple of years. a couple of years from now it will only take them a few weeks. so i think they are really there unless the program can be somehow reversed. even if you stop it now, they will always have that ability to eventually get there. the technology is there. the capability to deploy it,
potentially covertly, at other sites is always an issue, and it does not mean we will discover other sites. >> the so-called military option, does it have -- >> that's the mission with a military option. you can take out a centrifuge plan. you can never be sure you have taken out all centrifuge plans. and you have to look at the political consequences of that. if the reason for acquiring a nuclear weapon capability is to defend yourself against attack and you attack them, you give them reason to build the capability again, and they can do so secretly, and more states will sympathize with their position and it will be harder and hardtory bring them back. >> that's also the end of the green movement because you spur a nationalist tweaf and crack drown in my view. iranians are anything, they are patriots. if they see they country
attacked, i believe they will rally. >> rose: president obama is confident he can, somehow through a policy of engagement, convince iranians it's not in their interest -- he is confident that he can somehow find a way out of this. is there any reason to believe the president is right? >> well, president ahmadinejad made the 20% announcement, but he also said, we are still looking at ways to export the low enriched uranium that they have in exchange for this 20% uranium for the medical search reactor in tehran. so, yeah, this to me is brinkmanship. the 20%, as you said, scott, iran is no more nuclear today than yesterday. this is a negotiating tool. >> do you think they want to negotiate? >> i think they do. i think significant factions want to. you know, who they is in iran is
always a bit murky but there are factions that see the isolation of exroin think, if we -- >> are they factions with power? >> i think they are factions with power. yes. so does mr. halle barf, and these are people that have power and they do not window an iran that is a 52 rye acin the world. >> rose: how far do you think this regime is prepared to go? >> of course that's a million dollars question but i think at this particular moment, within the context, roger's point is well taken that there are deep contradictions in iranian reality, ideals and iranian reality. but there's one more fundamental contradiction that is much more mundane which is iranian ambitions, to be a regional
player, a global player, and the reality of the completely dysfunctional and incompetent political system. and i think it is that basic mundane reality that will ultimately push some important players in iran to try to bring some sort of management in to this system. and has, so far, prevented radical forces that have surrounded both mr. ahmadinejad and mr. amme to go for their ultimate desire to purge their former leader from the iranian political system. what has been shown in the past few months in iran is that no side can purge the others. and i think when that fundamental reality finally sinks in, then there might be a
possibility for some sort of accommodation on the part of both sides. >> there are people pushing for compromise. there are people telling aommen, you have to make a suggestion. it's not going away. it's powerful. it does not in its majority seek the overthrow of the republic and there has to be a gesture. for some that gesture is that ahmadinejad has to go. for others, there's something else. but there's discussion, intense discussion, as i understand it, but what compromise could eventually emerge. >> and not becoming a nuclear -- >> it's more about the internal politics than the nuclear issue. i think the internal politics are just moving faster than the nuclear issue. if you have a change in the balance of power in the leadership then you will have a leadership that addresses the nuclear issue in a saner way. i won't ruin iran's national
ambitions but you will have an intralock tore that is stable and can talk . >> should the rest of the world done more to say we identify with you and we support you and sent a more visible and stronger message? >> that's a very hard question. there are leaders inside iran& who do not want to hear that kind of message, because they feel that would sound like foreign interference and under mine them. but there are people on the street who do want to hear that and say it wouldtive them hope at least. >> it's hard but, in many ways, that's why they are reaching out and making videos with their cell phones, giving interstates, because they want to get the message out that there are people on the streets that are fighting against this regime and they want the outside world to
realize, government is not popular. just to go back to your question about finding a solution to iran's nuclear program, that was one of the major concerns, there were concerns among the leaders. what if wes makes an agreement with ahmadinejad's nuclear program. they're afraid this has no legitimacy at home. how can they make an agreement with the government that is not supportive of it's own people. there was a report that said even if there was an agreement they would not stay with the agreement. >> how far were you -- you know in your weights case, because of pronounced threats? >> it was very hard. i felt that i was being pushed out of my home, somewhere that belonged to me as much as it belonged to the pro government
forces. and i felt that, by leaving the country i would turn away from the real story. but i was there, i wasn't able -- able to talk to people on the street. i get a sense of what was happening. it was very difficult about the first two weeks when i was out of the country. but things suddenly changed and it's more because of what was happening inside of iran and how people were willing to reach out and put stuff on the internet that helps reporters outside of the criticize to understand what is happening for the situation. >> i look at nazila and i think of those tumultuous and bloody days in june when she was the most fantastic friend and colleague. what i thought of millimeter times is the waste. what a waste, you know? this is a country with so many talent, so much going for this.
this could be turkey on steroids. they could have tourism. there are so many iranians who want to do things for this country. it wouldn't take a lot to get there but the country has not been able to leave over that last hurdle. >> rose: thank you, roger, as always. thank you. thank you. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, farideh and thank you very much. >> as the countdown to the academy awards continues we bring you another oscar moment much >> i think it's about the contradictions that we all embody. i think too long hollywood has made films, at least for me, in which the characters are good and then evil, and the good guys are flawed but nicely flawed,
and the bad guys have a couple of good points but not really good. i don't think that's reality. i think that we are the villains and the heros in our own lives. there were people that do terrible, villain us things but to understand who they are, you is 0 to look at them as a flawed human being. >> tom donohue is here, the president and c.e.o. of the u.s. chamber of commerce. during his tenure the operation has grown into the most popular lobbying group in washington with a yearly budge el of $200 billion. even donohue's enemies admire his tenacity. "it's fair to say we disagree with most things but he took a sleepy organizations and turned it into one of the most aggressive lobbying groups in town. so we're pleased to hear from mr. donohue here at the table
for the first time. >> thank you. >> i see you in different fors rums, what was it that you did to the chamber of commerce when you got there? >> the chamber was a great brand. it was founded -- it will be a hundred years in 2012. and it went through cycles, like companies do, they're up and they're down. and when i got there, and that was the second time i was there because i sent eight years there before, it was on a down cycle. so we could do things that you couldn't do on an up cycle. so we got out of the magazine business. we got out of the tv business. we did all of that and said we're going to focus all of our energy on two things: one, advocacy. on behalf of the american business community. big company, small companies, and we were going to do it with great integrity and good manners but we were really going to move it. the second thing, which is very interesting -- >> go ahead. >> we're going to be the
reinsurance salesman. now we're never going to sell insurance but we are the people that you could come to us and when you're in trouble and, you know, another association, you couldn't get something passed, they had something come in. we were the reassurance people. if you came in and you were our members and supporters, we were going to be there for you. we did this in the congress and senate and white house and courts. we have two mej legal organizations. we sue the federal government of the united states 150 times a year on regulatory issues. and we said we're going to do it in the court of public opinion. you couldn't do it over night. i took a long time. >> what is the philosophy? >> the philosophy of the chamber is simple: we believe, first of all, that if you have strong economies driven by private sector business, you will create wealth, create jobs and do what
is essential in this country, and in my great country to protect the individual liberty and the opportunity for people to function in this society where they fail and get it again. and in the business where they have free and open market and free frayed and you can do it no matter what your background. this is the country of opportunity. >> do you think that the america that the chamber believes in, and the america that tom donohue believes in is any different from the bama, problem comes in. >> i was amazed when you were talking to him before, everybody goes to the ballgame. even though you're in different stands, it's the same game. barack obama cares about his country. president obama came to the president with a limited amount
of global experience. and yet i have watched over the year as he begins to change, as he begins to find out what his real job is, which is to protect and defend the people of the united states. and i give him great karen for caring about his country and for trying to resolve issues. it's a question of now do you do it? what is the cause and effect. >> what is your complaint about the president? >> my differents with the president are more in scope and method. so let me give you an example. for years i vaticaning with c.e.o.'s of different companies and they all want a health care bill. we have got to turn down the curve on the cost of health care. the president came in, he let everybody else write the bill and ended up with something that in all of my years in washington, was so billing, so expansive that i think it could
bust the bank and it couldn't have done what we needed to turn down of the cost curve! same thing on climate. we want a domestic climate bill. >> are you saying what came out of congress is not what the president wanted? >> i'm not sure what he wanted. >> we know what he wanted to health care. he wanted a public option for example. >> i think he was in favor of public option when he thought he had to do that to get it from nancy pelosi and harry read. i don't think he had a public feeling about a public option. >> do you believe he had an intestinal -- to see that many americans did not have health insurance. >> i do. and we should do that. >> so where are we now? >> well, right now we are sort of rechecking our situation. and the president has invited for next week, i think it is,
the republicans and others to come and visit on what we're going to do next. i think it's fair to say that we need to cover people that were not covered because it's cheaper than the way they get their health care now. i think it's nair to say we have to take steps to turn down the cost of -- there's 50-something percent of the budget all together, we can't let it keep going. and there's nobody to blame. because when they put those programs together, you were supposed to die at 62 years of age. now we live to 79? we need to figure out a way to trim down the cost and keeping quality programs. >> what i want to do is understand why you are on these things and where the chamber is and whether it is much more to do with issues, specific issues like health care and specific issues like cap and trade and specific issues having to do with the business labor questions than anything else. >> those are the differences.
what we look at in the national security and the geopolitical issues are, in most instances, we immediately support our country. >> right. >> and therefore, our president. we raise issues along the margin. when we do homeland security we need to still get people into our country. one of our greatest exports is -- we have to deal with immigration and visas and those things. so along the margins, we have -- on the focus of the national security and well being of the country we're with the president, whoever he or she may be. >> do you think the president is on the right track? >> i think he is working very hard to keep a lot of cats in a very small box. >> but you have some reservations that there are too many reservations out there? >> no, i have some sympathy. i have some national empathy. i have some willingness to write the chamber to support what is
going on there in many ways. we're doing everything from supporting our soldiers and we are talking about trading investment and that is important to solving problems now. >> there's a considerable body of opinion that says, two of the biggest issues facing this country right now are unemployment and debt. >> i absolutely agree. and i believe that it's jobs. you know, unemployment -- >> i couldn't agree more. jobs and people. >> it's people having jobs. >> and we all know that in the long run we're going to have to take some very serious decisions to deal with this debt. first, it's easy to say let's look at a health care thing that are trimmians and trillions of dollars and what the options are. i think if you build the strategy, that you have to put people back to work. if you put people back to work you're going to reduce
significantly the current self sit, and we have got to create jobs. >> tell me the best way to create jobs. everybody wants to create jobs. >> thank you for asking. >> the state of american business 2010. >> we do that every year in early january. in there, we say we need to create 20 million jobs independent next 10 years. we need to create those jobs to put back to work the people that are unemployed and to put to work the people that are coming into the workforce. we suggest four or five ways to do that. first is to build on our strength with the -- we're the largest exporter in the world. we need to double our exports in five years and double them again in the next five years. if you do that you will create lots of good jobs in this country. >> thank you for asking again. what we suggested is, first of all, we need to confirm in the
congress the three by lard trade agreements that we have and one of them is a sensitive issue because they cut a deal. >> the president has not pushed the bilateral trade agreements. >> but recent history is that the president is talking about them all the time. geithner has said over the weekend that we need to do them right now. and i think, when the president, having made this commitment on jobs, feeling the political heat on jobs, looking at the recent number on jobs, is, as we talked at the front end of the show, is learning. and i think that he will support that. i think thing that he is doing is to change some of our export rules. our rules on what we can sell overseas comes from the gold war, and it is technology that is four generations out of turn. if we change some of our export rules we will export lots more
stuff. >> explain that because a lot of people don't understand. there are certain products thank the are not allowed to be sold to certain countries because they belief there are safety issues. >> technology issues, issues on satellites, lots of things that you can buy on the street corner in france. we don't want to sell the real dangerous or advantage technology but there are a lot of things thank the we can now sell without creating any difficulty in this country. >> is that going to create jobs? >> yes. lots. we're talking about tens and hundreds of millions of things that can be sold. >> what about job retraining, which never seems to me at first glance to work as people hope they would, so people can train and develop new skills for different kinds of jobs. >> i'm all for that. >> but it cost money. >> and companies spend about 60 billion a year training
people, starting with teaching them to read and write. you know, 30% of the kids in the country don't graduate from high school. so this is a real challenge. but to have the motivation to train people, you to have the jobs for them to go to. and by the way, a lot of training that we do, because you're right on spot, is that we're training people for what we did years ago. >> but that's the responsibility in business, i think, in part and here is the idea. the idea and jeff has talked about this, you have got to create a different kind of manufacturing base in america. >> we're moving very much in that direction. >> it cannot be the same -- >> it can't be installing steel furnaces and that's a job you could do without education in america. if we could get kids in high school to read and write and count in an effective way and do a little bit of algebra, there are lots of jobs going to be
available. you have to face reality. we had the worst recession that we have had since the great depression. >> why do you think the chamber went and supported the president to do the stimulus program when a third or half of my members wouldn't want to do it. >> i assume you did it because the stimulus program would save jobs. >> we did it, after talking to people around the world, i felt if america didn't step forward and make some demonstration to fix this problem, we could have dropped into a global depression. >> rose: so you approve of the stimulus bill that came out of congress. >> the stimulus was a critical medical addition to a sick patient that most anybody should have approved at the time, even though it was toxic, not well formulated and in the long run,
i will do it and do it again. >> do you think geithner in this administration and the previous administration, geithner and bernanke and larry summers have done a good job in hemming the financial sector as well as -- >> you know, 2020 hindsight is a specialty in this country and now we're having all kinds of hearings. but at the time this thing hit us in a significant way, those guys were working 18, 19 hours 0 day. they were making decisions with the information that they had available. they made mistakes. but the bottom line is, the system is still working. we are making progress. >> and we averted we averted two or t chrman voly smart man. and he raises a thoughtful argument. that press conference with the volkert rules and things the political guys threw in that was not naferred by geithner and
sumners. but the volkert rules make since with one exception. i don't think that all of the banks all over this country ought to be independent business of investing for their own pockets and doing all of that. >> so-called proprietary train. >> right. but to ket in a global circumstance where the japanese banks are very being, and there are some fairly broad-based european banks, i think if you sat both down and said why don't we apply your dimensions to the -- and have three or four global banks that perhaps have higher capital requirements or other protections, not too big to fail, because then everybody puts the money in their bank. but there are ways to do what boca wants to do without putting us out of the competitive business of being able to do global mergers and global investments and i think that's what we need to find our way to
do. >> you saw me interview a very, very wealthy brazilian millionaire. he said american political deadlock worries a lot of people that look at america. tom friedman writes about sort of the best solutions are not coming out of the political process. are you worried about this idea. >> i'm not worried about this idea. our founding fathers were pretty smart people. of course they didn't have black baryps and cell nons and all of that but they were savvy people. often what the united states does in its political process, on a federal level, what it does is important and what it doesn't do is really important. and if you look over some history of the things -- >> so a fillibuster is fine with you. >> yes. >> the 06 vote -- >> has it been used badly? sometimes yes. by the way, i would suggest to you that now that we don't have
60 votes and you know, experiences -- if either one party, has the house, the senate and presidency, the other people aren't very relevant so we're down the road with opposition. now that there's less than 60 votes and i would shea once you didn't have the 60, you lost another five votes because people can now do that. >> i think the president and the members of the house and senate are looking at more rational approaches to these things. >> what did you think would be rational about health care reform. the size. the cost. the loss of of the private system. you know, we -- >> hold on. i need you to explain this to me because i didn't realize that we were losing the private system. >> well, when we were working so hard to have a public option and to put in the private option and
into penalties that made it more difficult to stay in the system. you had to go into the system where particularly the house of representatives and some in the senate believe the government should run the health care system. >> did you know the government would be running the health care senate, that came out of the senate. >> no, they're running 50% now. >> that's because the medicare. >> right. >> does medicare work or not work. >> yes and it's too suspensionive. >> so yes, medicare works and that's what a government run system, but it's too expensive. can you mean fix that. >> yes. >> patriot ruling on campaign finance. >> as you know, we and the afl-cio and other labor unions together petitioned the supreme court to rule on that issue. all the numbers talked about it's for the company but the
unions were with us on the very same petition. we did -- the way it has been written up is as if the whole world has changed. nothing has changed except two things. we will now be able to continue to talk about politics right up until the election and not be precluded from doing so 60 or 90 days before because there's legislation under way. and the second thing is, that now we can't spend money directly, we can't do a lot of things. now, instead of just saying you should call your congressman, and use his name, and ask him about this piece of legislation, we could now say, you should call your congressman and think about how you're going to vote for him because he keeps voting against his piece of legislation or he votes for it. it's an express advocate thing that we can say, this is why you should or should not vote for somebody. my own view, it's not going to
put a lot more into this thing. my view, corporations are not going to go out and use the money. and the unions may get the best deal out of this. >> is that what the afl-cio feels about this. >> so you disagree with what the president said in the state of the union? >> i think the president, for a constitutional lawyer, didn't get it right in the state of the union. >> great to be here. >> thank you very much. >> british fashion designer alexander mcqueen died earlier today no london of an apparent suicide. he was 41 years old. he was a four time winner of the british designer of the year award and name known for his fashions.
mcqueen was the bad boy of fashion who was beloved by the establishment. his big break came when the british editor and style icon, isabella blough bought his entire masters collection. his death came just before he was to unveil a new collection at paris fashion week in march. in 1997 he appeared on this program during a series of broadcasts from london. here is a look at a portion of that interview. >> what is it that you think that you have? is it the instinct? or, you know, give me a sense of what it is that you bring to fashion. >> oh, well, i think -- i don't know. i grew up looking at most designers that are still around today, like valentino, and carl lagger felds of this world. and as i grew up, i started depicting what i thought fashion
was about . and i live in central london. i'm surrounded by the things, most of the other designers don't really see, the real london, the club scene, the homelessness, things other designers don't really want to see. >> so your influences are different. >> my influences are different and more, i suppose, honest and direct about the things that i care about in the world, because, even though i work in fashion, it's not really, you know, i still have to, you know, look what else is going on in the world and some of that comes into my work. >> so, and we see more sense of a street from you thane would see from laggerfeld or someone like that. >> i have a young clientele that really want honesty in their fashion. i do like to expose what is going on in the outside world into the fashion world which doesn't always go down well. then people can take you or leave you.
>> my sense about you, having known you for five minutes is that you don't really care. >> it's not that i don't really care. it's just that i'm trying to change people's public opinions about fashion itself. because it's not as shallow as it seems to be in the normal public's eye. it's not just about parties to go to and who you know and don't know. i think i'm just a bit more honest about -- i don't really go to so many parties. but you know, i just have to keep my feet on the ground and not my head in the clouds. >> for you, fashion is about one truth and what else? what ought fashion be? >> well, on the tentacle side for me it's about cut, proportion, and color. those are the main influences. the cut has to be right, the portion has to be right and that's more of a technical side to me and you don't expect the public to understand but that's what you're there for, to understand it for them. >> alexander mcqueen, dead at